So, I'm reading a posting by Rep. Luis Gutierrez entitled "Why We Should Welcome McConnell's Demand for Hearings on Rescinding 14th Amendment"
As I read, it flows much as I expected, covering the rather insane intent of the Republican Party to inflame the fastest growing section of the US population of Latinos/Hispanics into a visceral rejection of the Republican Party by labeling them as nothing more than "illegal immigrants dropping anchor babies", to the last hombre.
Then, I come to this paragraph - and I have an epiphany.
For the first time in my entire life. Seriously. An ephiphany.
Excerpt
I really want to hear the Republican argument. Let's hear why the 14th amendment, which guarantees citizenship and equal protection under the law regardless of the race or nationality of your parents, is a law whose time has come and gone.
What if the rejection of birthright citizenship is merely the 'cover story' for the Republican Party's sudden and outrageous attack on the 14th Amendment, which reads:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
As you can see, there are various elements incorporated into the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Section 1:
a. Birthright citizenship is enumerated and entwined with the concept of 'jurisdiction', to ensure that all persons who are citizens are recognized as such by the legal authority of the State where they are born.
b. States must recognize and abide by Federal "privileges and immunites" conferred under the US Constitution; life and liberty being cited in the text.
c. All "persons" in every State are to be afforded "equal protection under the laws".
That's just in Section 1.
So, here's my ephiphany.
What if the sudden agitation on the Republican side of the aisle surrounding the 14th Amendment is only supposed to get people talking about changing the 14th Amendment.
Of course, opening with a strident call for elimination of birthright citizenship, on the cusp of the era when Latinos/Hispanics will move into a projected 'majority' on a racial basis sometime later this century would appear, on the face of it, to be a perfectly stoopid policy move. Wouldn't it?
Perhaps, though, it's only an opening salvo in the next great conservative policy to catch fire across the Republican landscape.
Because, after all, haven't they been bleating about States Rights thoughout most of the Bush Era? Isn't States Rights the foundation of the Conservative Movement? Don't they want to return to a different Era, one where Southern States had Laws that restricted the rights of Blacks and interactions between Blacks and Rights? Not to mention Jews and teh Gays.
Disclaiming SCOTUS decisions which laid a burden on their States to join all of their fellow States in the treatment of citizens when it comes to Foundational Rights, i.e. Brown vs Board of Education & Roe vs Wade; and railing about the failure to uphold State's Rights, indeed, to run over State's Rights (by fiat) under the purvue of Activist Judges.
Somehow, I doubt that this foment surrounding Birthright Citizenship will continue much past the November elections.
But what I doubt with all my heart, is that once November wafts into the dustbin of history that all talk of Discussing the validity of the 14th Amendment vis a vis current America will also come to a halt.
Because by then, the clamor for the end to Birthright Citizenship will have morphed into the fight that the Conservative Movement has been longing for since Ronald Reagan rolled into Washington D.C. - the fight to remove the constraint of "equal protection" from State's Rights issues, which, in the cornucorpia of the Republican Party are all of them.
The Conservatives and the Republican Party have been dreaming of a day when they can roll back the clock to a time when... well, you know - the era of segregated public bathrooms and restaurants, like current candidate for the US Senate from the State of Kentucky, Rand Paul, has said he supports.
To be precise, I myself heard the candidate himself say that a public restaurant owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, when the question put to him was, "should restaurants be allowed to discriminate against black people".
So this is what we have to look forward to fighting, come the 2012 elections no matter the outcome of November 2010.
Because Repeal of Equal Protection is the ultimate Conservative objection, make no mistake about it.
Imagine, if you will, the State of Texas no longer constrained by the 14th Amendment:
Abortion is now prohibited in all cases, except the life of the mother, not the health, but only the life of the mother.
Private business is no longer legally enjoined from discriminating against customers of certain races or religions or any reason the proprietor deems relevant.
Public schools are abandoned in favor of private, religiously based education paid for by parents.
That, unfortunately, in not simply hyperbole, but a possible outcome in a future where the Republicans manage to eviscerate the 14th Amendment and it's critical and foundational protections for We All the People.